If you think all the efforts that have been put into car crash mitigation over the past fifty years have been a waste of time, check out this video, apparently from the US Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
It pits a 1959 Chevrolet against a current Chevrolet Malibu in a one-third overlap frontal collision.
Fair warning - if you have a soft spot in your heart for the big-winged '59 Chevy, avert your eyes.
Yep....cars are much safer, death rate is down yet insurance rates continue to climb.
Posted by: Colin King | September 07, 2010 at 02:13 AM
Unquestionably, the modern Malibu does much better. But, there's a couple of non-obvious things to consider. First off, the two cars actually weigh the same amount. It's easy to think of the 59 as a lead-sled compared to the current car, but that's not true. Second, the 59 is based on a X-frame design, which couldn't possibly have done well in this kind of crash. So this is a semi-fluke based on when the NHTSA had their 50th anniversary.
Posted by: Greg H | September 07, 2010 at 11:36 PM
Jim,
Can you expand more on how ineffective Radar Traps are preventing accidents. I live in Calgary which has the distinction of being the worst place to drive when it comes to the police's reliance on speed traps, photo radar, red light cameras. My thought is, if these were effective, Calgary would be the safest place on earth to drive. Clearly that is not the case. I have always believed that is is a form of taxation on drivers. Purely a revenue grab.
Posted by: Colin Scott | September 08, 2010 at 10:49 AM
All that dust in the air... is that rust? And is that why the Bel Aire fared so poorly? Yeah, call me a skeptic! I don't doubt that today's cars are safer, but that may not have been the fairest test.
Posted by: Jon | September 08, 2010 at 03:11 PM
Was a 1/3 offset selected to take advantage of the old body-on-frame architecture of the 1959 vehicle? I wonder what the footage would look like in a full-front head on collision...
Posted by: Patrick | September 09, 2010 at 10:38 PM
The one-third offset is a standard crash test, designed to reflect how 'real' head-on crashes occur. In most cases, the drivers realize they're going to hit, and try to get back into their own lanes, hence the one-third overlap.
Chances are a full-frontal head-on crash would yield similar results.
Jim
Posted by: Jim Kenzie | September 27, 2010 at 01:42 AM
Ironically, those safer cars are more expensive to fix, and - crass as it is to even mention it - dead crash victims are relatively cheap. Survivors cost WAY more to keep alive and healthy!
Which is why I wish active headrests were mandatory...
Jim
Posted by: Jim Kenzie | September 27, 2010 at 01:51 AM